R v Minhinnick
[2023] VSC 736
•11 December 2023
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2022 0195
| THE KING | Crown |
| v | |
| TIA MINHINNICK | Accused |
---
JUDGE: | NIALL JA |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 30 October 2023 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 11 December 2023 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Minhinnick |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VSC 736 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Where victim mother of the accused – Violent attack on vulnerable victim – Young offender – Importance of rehabilitation – Departure from sentence indication based on new material – Sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 15 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr DA Glynn | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr TR Marsh | Leanne Warren & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
Tia Minhinnick, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of your mother Angela Huata late on the night of 9 February 2022. It is my duty to sentence you for that crime.
In late 2021, your mother, her youngest child Henimoa, and you moved into a house in Springvale. Also living there was a young woman named Renee Kawana and her father Stasha Henry. Ms Kawana’s partner, Peter Hosking, would also often stay at the house.
Your mother was 41 years old at the time of her death. She had six children; Henimoa is the youngest and you are the eldest. Ms Huata suffered from a degenerative medical condition since her adolescence which resulted in weakness and muscle wasting. The effects of her condition included that she had problems with her mobility, she had great difficulty getting up if she fell down or was sitting in a low chair, and could not carry any significant weight. She received assistance from a support worker who would visit regularly to help her with various tasks.
I will say more about your mother and the devastating effect that her tragic death has had on members of her family shortly.
The lead up
On the evening of Wednesday 9 February, a friend of yours, Dylan Naidu, came to visit. He brought alcohol with him, which he recalls being a bottle of Wild Turkey. You and Naidu sat at a table in the backyard drinking and talking. You were joined by Renee Kawana and Peter Hosking.
Sometime before 10:00 pm, the four of you went to a local pool hall. You were intoxicated and began to exhibit odd and aggressive behaviour. When you arrived at the pool hall, Kawana and Hosking entered and you and Naidu stayed outside. You walked off towards Springvale railway station yelling, ‘where is he?’. Naidu did not understand what you were talking about. Naidu followed you to Balmoral Road, where you were still yelling ‘where is he?’ and ‘why do people always do this to me?’. Naidu unsuccessfully attempted to calm you down, and you punched him three times to the face and headbutted him. Naidu decided to leave and go home. He telephoned Kawana and asked her to look out for you. Hosking went to find you and brought you back to the pool hall.
You left the pool hall and returned home just after 11:00 pm. Kawana and Hosking returned about 15 minutes later.
When Kawana and Hosking returned home, they saw your mother Ms Huata sitting on the floor in front of a couch. She was bleeding from a wound on her forehead. You were standing over her and yelling at her. You accused her of allowing Henimoa to get onto a dirty table and eat cigarette butts.
Kawana and Hosking retreated to their bedroom. They took Henimoa to her bedroom. As Hosking was getting a blanket for the child you said to Hosking, ‘do you want me to fucken kill you?’, and Hosking returned to his bedroom. Later Kawana came out to try and calm you down, to which you responded ‘do you want a smack too?’.
Kawana went to her father’s room. Mr Henry had been woken up by yelling at about 11:30 pm but remained in his room. Ms Kawana says that she told her father that the accused was hitting the deceased. Mr Henry says that she said that the accused had threatened Hosking. Either way, neither of them called police. Ms Kawana says that she did not have the courage to do so.
From their room, Kawana and Hosking heard you yelling at your mother for perhaps up to two hours and Kawana heard you say ‘get the fuck up’; and ‘get the fuck out’. She heard the back door opening. CCTV footage from a neighbouring property contained audio of a person, who I infer was you, saying ‘get up’ and ‘get the fuck up’ intermittently between 11:40 pm on 9 February through to 1:01 am on 10 February. The last noise on the audio is a loud thud at 2:04 am.
At some point you took Ms Huata to the garage. Your vicious assault continued.
After a protracted beating, you stopped and at some point made some basic attempts at first aid. These were useless. You did not call an ambulance. You took your mother back to your bed. At some point her clothes were removed.
At the time you were in a relationship with a young woman called Natalie Jensen. You sent her a text at 12:52 am in the morning asking her to call you. You spoke with her and exchanged some messages. At 1:24 am, you texted Jensen saying that ‘I’m so scared’ and ‘I think I might’ve went too far’. At 1:34 am you texted: ‘She seems okay but not okay’; ‘I just wanna get her to bed’; and ‘Like she doesn’t breathe but every time I try to move her she breathes’. At 1:48 am you texted ‘I just wanna get her to bed that’s all; ‘As long as she’s okay and in bed’; ‘I do not mind what happens’.
Early on the Sunday morning, Henry woke up to go to work. Kawana and Hosking got up at around 6:30 am. Kawana and Hosking did not see you or your mother or look in your bedroom. They saw blood in the kitchen and tried to clean it up, mopping the floor. They saw Jensen, who had arrived at the house at some point very early that morning. Jensen eventually called an ambulance and, on instructions from the operator, commenced CPR.
The injuries
When the ambulance arrived, they observed that Ms Huata had been dead for some time. Post mortem examination revealed the catastrophic extent of her injuries. Ms Huata had suffered multiple injuries which were extensive and widely distributed over her chest, abdomen, head, back, neck, limbs and pelvis. She had 28 separate rib fractures, a fracture to her sternum and her pubic symphysis. There were numerous other injuries, both internal and surface, including a laceration to the liver and burst eardrums.
The crime of murder, the intentional killing of another without lawful justification, is a terrible crime. It is one of the most serious offences to come before the court. The loss of life that is involved is always tragic and often causes immense suffering for family and friends. It has done so in this case.
The seriousness of the offence of murder is also reflected in the fact that the maximum punishment prescribed by law is life imprisonment. Murder is also a standard sentence offence for which the standard sentence is 25 years’ imprisonment. I have regard to those matters.
The court received victim impact statements from a number of family members. Their loss is immense and devastating for them. No sentence that this Court can impose can make up for that loss. The loss of a mother, sister and daughter, especially in such violent circumstances, cannot adequately be described. Ms Huata’s mother, Ena Huata, spoke of the pain and shock at the loss of her daughter and the effect it has had on your siblings. The grief has extended to New Zealand where you have many close relatives.
In order to determine the appropriate sentence it is necessary for this Court to assess the relative seriousness of your offending. To say that there may be worse examples does not in any way diminish the seriousness of your offence or the devastating impact that it has had.
There are a number of features of your offending, Mr Minhinnick, that make it a serious example of murder. Ms Huata was vulnerable, especially because of her disability. She was in her own home, a place where she was entitled to be safe. You were subject of a family violence intervention order in relation to your mother, which aggravates your conduct. The attack on her was protracted, extremely violent and unremitting. The extent of the injuries reveals the shocking brutality of your conduct. The injuries, particularly to the pubic symphysis, show a very high degree of force. Given the disparity in your strength and size and the sustained nature of the assault, it matters little whether or not you used any implement or weapon. I am satisfied that you took your mother from the house to the garage, where you inflicted further injuries upon her.
The assault was not premeditated or planned. I accept that it was spontaneous and very likely your anger escalated unchecked for some time.
That none of the adults who were at the house that night intervened or called the police or an ambulance is a shocking aspect of this matter. But their inaction, due to fear or some other unexplained reason, does not aggravate your offending. It does point to a dysfunctional household and a level of disorder that has been a feature of your life. I do not hold you responsible for that.
On your plea you relied on two medical reports, the first in time from clinical psychologist Alison Mynard and the second from psychiatrist Dr Adam Deacon. Neither of those reports was available to the Court at the time a sentencing indication was given.
I accept, based on the accounts in those reports, that your development was marked by considerable adversity and trauma. You grew up in a violent household and experienced violence and neglect at the hands of both your parents. Your parents separated and you left home when you were 14 years old. You experienced periods of homelessness and left school at the end of year 10 due to poor behaviour. Your adolescence and early adulthood were marked by instability, and drug and alcohol abuse.
I accept that you have had long periods of depression and suffered anxiety which can be debilitating. In order to address these problems you have abused alcohol and drugs. You became a regular user of methamphetamine and a heavy drinker. There was an incident in which you apparently attempted to take your own life by walking in front of a moving vehicle. That led to some significant injuries and a short period of hospitalisation. It did not result in any treatment to address your compromised mental health or from which a better understanding of the present incident could be obtained.
I have found the reports of Dr Deacon and Ms Mynard useful to understand a bit more about your upbringing and the context in which the offending occurred. Where there are areas of difference between them I prefer the evidence of Dr Deacon. As a psychiatrist he is better qualified to make a diagnosis of medical illness, and his analysis is more persuasive. Dr Deacon concludes that you have a persistent depressive disorder, and experienced symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder (‘PTSD’) stemming from considerable childhood trauma. These symptoms include reliving experiences, nightmares, hypervigilance, combined with poorly formed self-concept, interpersonal changes and emotional dysregulation. I accept that evidence.
You reported to both Ms Mynard and Dr Deacon that you have experienced unusual phenomena since childhood. These included seeing a dark figure and hearing voices. Ms Maynard considered that you have a psychotic disorder or schizophrenia. Although I accept that you have experienced unusual phenomena from time to time, I am unable to accept Ms Mynard’s diagnosis. Dr Deacon considered that these symptoms most likely correlate with childhood trauma, rather than an enduring psychotic disorder. He reached that conclusion because there does not appear to be delusion in your thinking, no documented evidence of thought disorder, and the symptoms correlate with trauma. I accept that evidence.
As a result of your upbringing, you have experienced PTSD symptoms, including anxiety and hypervigilance. Your troubled childhood has, I considered, contributed to your inability to control your anger and has produced symptoms of PTSD.
I accept that feelings of anger towards your mother, which I accept were long-standing and complex, were exacerbated by your concern that she was inadequately caring for your younger sister. However, I do not accept that your childhood disadvantage or your upset about your siblings was directly related to your offending. You were vague in your account of the offending to Dr Deacon, which prevented any conclusions as to your precise mental state at the time. Rather, your intoxication from alcohol and illicit drugs on the night significantly contributed to emotional dysregulation and inhibition and your loss of control. I am persuaded that your odd behaviour and your assault on your friend before you returned home was a result of intoxication. I do, however, take into account that your inability to control your temper is, to an extent, a product of your upbringing.
I must make it clear that in taking into account your deprived upbringing and your perception as to your mother’s care of Henimoa, I am not saying that Ms Huata bears any responsibility for what happened to her. She was a victim of your shocking offending. I note that in her statement to police, Ms Huata’s support worker, who assisted her twice a week for a year to help her with daily tasks because of her disability, described your mother as an extremely good mother who loved her children.
In his report of October 2023, Dr Deacon recorded that you are coping in custody but continue to experience some symptoms of PTSD and tend to avoid social contact with other prisoners. I take into account the fact that your history of depression and anxiety and PTSD symptoms will mean that your time in prison would, to some extent, be more onerous than someone without those conditions. I regard this as a relevant but not significant matter in my overall assessment.
There are two factors that I give particular weight: your age and the plea of guilty.
You are a young man. You were 20 years old at the time of the offence. Consistent with authority, your young age makes rehabilitation a principal factor in sentencing. I regard that as important in your case. Not only are you young, you have had, as I have said, a difficult upbringing. You have used drugs and alcohol to treat feelings of anxiety and depression and other PTSD type symptoms. You have not had adult role models to assist you in developing as a young adult and it is plain that you have lived in dysfunctional households. I am satisfied that your young age and troubled lifestyle meant that you were ill-equipped to deal with the highly conflictual relationship with your mother.
In the circumstances I am satisfied that your age to a significant degree, and your compromised mental health and difficult upbringing less so, in combination reduce your culpability for the offending.
I am also satisfied that you have deep feelings of remorse and shame as a result of your offending. Although your plea of guilty was not early, and was made after a sentencing indication, I accept that it provides evidence of remorse. More broadly, your accounts to Dr Deacon and Ms Mynard show that you accept responsibility for your conduct and understand the terrible toll that it has had on members of your family.
You have a relatively minor criminal history which includes a charge of recklessly causing injury, which was dealt with in the Children’s Court in 2020, and a robbery charge dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court. This latter offending resulted in a community corrections order, which you breached. In 2021 you were also convicted in the Magistrates’ Court of a contravention of a family violence safety notice, for which you were fined. I take these matters into account, though give them little weight. They do show that notwithstanding remorse, and the vastly different nature of this offending, alcohol and drug abuse, if it continues, would obviously give rise to a risk of further offending. Overall, I regard your prospects of rehabilitation as good, with some, albeit moderate, need to address specific deterrence.
Your plea also means that a trial has been avoided. This is of value to both the community as a whole and to the family of Ms Huata. Although the effects of the pandemic are becoming more remote, you spent time in prison when there were restrictions that made it more onerous than it would otherwise have been. Moreover, there remains some additional utility in pleas as the justice system emerges from the pandemic. Although this last factor is waning, I give it some small weight.
The crime of murder is a very grave offence. And in order to mark the seriousness of the offence and the importance that the law must attach to life, a long term of imprisonment is inevitable. It is necessary to denounce the offending. The sentence I must impose on you as a young man, will mean that a very large proportion of your 20s and 30s will be spent in prison, and is a very heavy sentence. They are important decades in most lives and to spend them in prison with all the loss of freedoms and liberties that this entails is a very significant punishment. I must not impose a sentence that is longer than that which is necessary to properly reflect the purposes of sentencing. Nevertheless the sentence must be commensurate with the crime and accommodate all of the matters to which I have referred.
As you know, on your application I gave a sentencing indication. At the time I expressed misgivings that it was to be determined without any medical or psychological evidence and on minimal material provided on instructions. The material on the plea is different. As the prosecutor correctly submitted, I should not use that indication as a starting point from which I then address any new mitigating evidence. Rather, I have stood back and reviewed all of the material to ensure that the sentence I impose takes into account the material now before me. Having done that exercise, the sentence that I must impose differs to some degree from the indication.
Mr Minhinnick, on the charge of the murder of Angela Huata I sentence you to 21 years’ imprisonment. I propose to set a non-parole period that will give you the opportunity of a relatively long period on parole. I regard this as appropriate given that you will have spent a significant amount of your adult years in prison until your release. Accordingly, I direct that you must serve a minimum term of 15 years’ imprisonment before you become eligible for parole.
I declare that you have served a period of 665 days, not including this day, as pre-sentence detention and I will direct that the making of this declaration be entered into the records of the Court.
Had you not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of 24 years, with a minimum of 19 years’ imprisonment.
---
0
0
0